Court Findings

Court Findings:

With that in mind the following are quotes from a ruling by Third Judicial District, State of Utah, Judge Stephen L. Henroid, in the matter of Jacqueline Nemelka, Petitioner, vs. Christopher Marc Nemelka, Respondent, Case # 924902578 DA, dated AUGUST 1, 2007.

III Findings of Fact

(2) P.5 …Respondent (Christopher Nemelka) claims mental distress due to his situation, but he is a physically fit man in full control of his faculties who simply needs to accept responsibility for his decisions and the care of his dependent minor children. Respondent is fully capable of employment and has presented no evidence of an inability to work other than a period of incarceration for approximately twelve months. He had demonstrated his capability to make regular payments, from June to December 2005, but as to the balance of the money he owes, simply chose not to support his children.

Respondent stated to the Court that he has always aspired to be among the working poor. Respondent currently earns a steady wage at Wal-Mart. The Court has no doubt that his advancement there or in better paying employment such as construction, where he has prior experience, is only hampered by his desire to avoid paying his legal debts by limiting his available assets or for an ascetic life. His desire to live on limited means would not be subject to criticism were it not for his choice to father a brood of at least NINE CHILDREN with their attendant material needs. His choice to embrace a POLYGAMOUS LIFESTYLE, father numerous children and avoid taxable income exacerbates his failures. Respondent’s child support obligations were determined based on his minimal income. The Court finds no valid reason for Respondent’s failure to pay child support, other than his intentional desire not to keep -up or catch-up with payments.

(3) Respondent Intentionally Failed or Refused to Comply with the Court Orders. … Respondent was jailed for a year in 2001 (unrelated to issues presently before the Court). He was released from custody and chose to flee Utah’s jurisdiction with an outstanding arrest warrant allegedly to care for a friend in California rather than provide anything for his children. During this time Respondent considered himself a fugitive from justice, between 2002 and 2005, he paid no child support.

…The Court observed a physically fit and mentally capable man who feels no personal obligation to support his children and who obviously is not concerned enough over Court sanctions to support them as he as (sic) been ordered to do. Respondent has a history of living off the support of others and apparently thinks his example is good enough for his children. Petitioner testified that Respondent has said all he needs to give his children is his wisdom, despite the apparent lack thereof. Respondent’s failure to support his children and patent disregard of Court Orders appears to the Court to be the so-called wisdom in which he is instructing his children.


The Court will not condone Respondent’s choice to drag his children into his troglodytic lifestyle. More egregious than Respondent’s disregard of the Court’s authority is his neglect of his children’s welfare. It is unconscionable that Respondent has fathered so many children and simultaneously demonstrated utterly no intent to take responsibility for, or to support any of them. His failure to pay even the nominal child support he owes, and condemning his children to live in poverty, is reprehensible.

%d bloggers like this: